Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm

“If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit [between now and] the year 2025 to 2050…. The rise in global temperature is predicted to … caus[e] sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century.”

It has been 30 years since the alarm bell was sounded for manmade global warming caused by modern industrial society. And predictions made on that day—and ever since—continue to be falsified in the real world.

The predictions made by climate scientist James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer back in 1988—and reported as model projected by journalist Philip Shabecoff—constitute yet another exaggerated Malthusian scare, joining those of the population bomb (Paul Ehrlich), resource exhaustion (Club of Rome), Peak Oil (M. King Hubbert), and global cooling (John Holdren).

Erroneous Predictive Scares

Consider the opening global warming salvo (quoted above). Dire predictions of global warming and sea-level rise are well on their way to being falsified—and by a lot, not a little. Meanwhile, a CO2-led global greening has occurred, and climate-related deaths have plummeted as industrialization and prosperity have overcome statism in many areas of the world.

Take the mid-point of the above’s predicted warming, six degrees. At the thirty-year mark, how is it looking? The increase is about one degree—and largely holding (the much-discussed “pause” or “warming hiatus”). And remember, the world has naturally warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age to the present, a good thing if climate economists are to be believed.

Turning to sea-level rise, the exaggeration appears greater. Both before and after the 1980s, decadal sea-level rise has been a few inches. And it has not been appreciably accelerating. “The rate of sea level rise during the period ~1925–1960 is as large as the rate of sea level rise the past few decades, noted climate scientist Judith Curry. “Human emissions of CO2 mostly grew after 1950; so, humans don’t seem to be to blame for the early 20th century sea level rise, nor for the sea level rise in the 19th and late 18th centuries.”

The sky-is-falling pitch went from bad to worse when scientist James Hansen was joined by politician Al Gore. Sea levels could rise twenty feet, claimed Gore in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, a prediction that has brought rebuke even from those sympathetic to the climate cause.

Now-or-Never Exaggerations

In the same book/movie, Al Gore prophesied that unless the world dramatically reduced greenhouse gasses, we would hit a “point of no return.” In his book review of Gore’s effort, James Hansen unequivocally stated: “We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.”

Time is up on Gore’s “point of no return” and Hansen’s “critical tipping point.” But neither has owned up to their exaggeration or made new predictions—as if they will suddenly be proven right.

Another scare-and-hide prediction came from Rajendra Pachauri. While head of a United Nations climate panel, he pleaded that without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet. In the same year, Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, predicted “global disaster” from the demise of Arctic sea ice in four years. He too, has gone quiet.

Nothing new, back in the late 1980s, the UN claimed that if global warming were not checked by 2000, rising sea levels would wash entire countries away

There is some levity in the charade. In 2009, then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown predicted that the world had only 50 days to save the planet from global warming. But fifty days, six months, and eight years later, the earth seems fine.

Climate Hysteria hits Trump

The Democratic Party Platform heading into the 2016 election compared the fight against global warming to World War II. “World War III is well and truly underway,” declared Bill McKibben in the New Republic. “And we are losing.” Those opposed to a new “war effort” were compared to everything from Nazis to Holocaust deniers.

Trump won the election, and the shrill got shriller. “Donald Trump’s climate policies would create dozens of failed states south of the U.S. border and around the world,” opined Joe Romm at Think Progress. “It would be a world where everyone eventually becomes a veteran, a refugee, or a casualty of war.”

Donald Trump is going to be president of the United States…. We’re at risk of departing from the stable climatic conditions that sustained civilization for thousands of years and lurching into the unknown. The world’s poorest countries, in particular, are ill-equipped to handle this disruption.

Renewable energy researcher John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”

Falsified Alarms, Compromised Science

If science is prediction, the Malthusian science of sustainability is pseudo-science. But worse, by not fessing up, by doubling down on doom, the scientific program has been compromised.

“In their efforts to promote their ‘cause,’” Judith Curry told Congress, “the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem.” She continued:

This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.

Even DC-establishment environmentalists have worried about a backfire. In 2007, two mainstream climate scientists warned against the “Hollywoodization” of their discipline. They complained about “a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.” To which Al Gore (the guilty party) responded: “I am trying to communicate the essence [of global warming] in the lay language that I understand.”

“There has to be a lot of shrillness taken out of our language,” remarked Environmental Defense Fund’s Fred Krupp in 2011. “In the environmental community, we have to be more humble. We can’t take the attitude that we have all the answers.”

Most recently, Elizabeth Arnold, longtime climate reporter for National Public Radio, warned that too much “fear and gloom,” leading to “apocalypse fatigue,” should be replaced by a message of “hope” and “solutions” lest the public disengage. But taxes and statism don’t sound good either.

Conclusion

If the climate problem is exaggerated, that issue should be demoted. Enter an unstated agenda of deindustrialization and a quest for money and power that otherwise might be beyond reach of the climate campaigners. It all gets back to what Tim Wirth, then US Senator from Colorado, stated at the beginning of the climate alarm:

We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.

“Right thing” in terms of economic and environmental policy? That’s a fallacy to explode on another day.

427 thoughts on “Failed Prognostications of Climate Alarm”

Great summary except, Peak Oil, as described by M. King Hubbert in 1956, isn’t an “exaggerated Malthusian scare.” It’s just the mathematical description of reservoir depletion. Others have created exaggerated Malthusian scares out of Hubbert’s work, like the Olduvai catastrophe fiction.

That’s because there’s a helluva lot more recoverable oil in the ground than M. King Hubbert imagined in 1956… And “Texas” hasn’t “shut down” any wells “due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas” or for any other reason. “Texas” doesn’t have any oil wells.

In 1956, Hubbert calculated that peak oil production in the US would occur between 1965 and 1975, based on a total estimated recoverable resource of 150-200 billion barrels. Cumulative production has already exceeded 200 billion bbl, current proved reserves are 40 billion bbl and the estimated undiscovered resource is currently around 130 billion bbl.

Proved reserves are just a fraction of the recoverable oil in existing reservoirs. So, proved reserves tend to rise with production and the undiscovered technically recoverable resource is also likely to increase over time. So, peak oil will continuously be pushed off into the future… as long as oil companies are allowed to operate as oil companies.

This is a map of all the (as of 2016) operating Oil and Gas wells within the state of Texas. They are all privately owned and operated. None are State Owned and operated so Yes Texas, as a state, owns and operates zero wells.
However
As of February 2017, Texas had 279,615 active oil and gas wells all Private or Corporate owned

That is an absurd semantic argument, Middleton. We all know that people make decisions in corporations, and corporations operate within state boundaries. “Texas” was obviously referring to decision-makers within the state of Texas, and not the Texas state government. Please improve the discussion here, and refrain from being a time-waster.

No. They own mineral rights under University Lands that were established by the State of Texas.

Oil companies lease the mineral rights, just like they do from private owners and the Federal government. The oil companies own the wells and the production. As part of the lease agreement, the lessor receives a percentage of the revenue from the production, usually 1/8.

Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.

I’ve lived in Texas and worked as a geologist/geophysicist in the oil industry since 1981… And I can unequivocally state that “Texas” hasn’t “just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas,” because “Texas” doesn’t own or operate any of the thousands of producing oil wells in Texas.

From the context it was clear (and most everyone else on the thread seemed to understand) that what was meant was that oil wells in Texas had been shut down. *Not* that the State of Texas owned those oil wells. That you keep making a semantic issue over it only makes you look petty and less credible despite your claims of being an “authority” for having “lived in Texas” and worked as a “geologist/geophysicist in the oil industry since 1981”.

John, these silly self-appointed “oil experts” in Texas and elsewhere are a dime a dozen and usually just full of themselves, as you have just witnessed. Wells get shut down in Texas, and prospective wells not drilled, all the time due to economics, as we saw in 2014-16. And the state of Texas has a financial (tax) stake in every single well.

Bloomberg 8-7-18: “Oil production in Texas is set to double by 2023, aided by investments form Exxon Mobil Corp, Chevron Corp, BP, Plc and others, to reach 5.4 million barrels a day, according to estimates by researcher IHS Market Ltd. That would top the output of any country in OPEC except Saudi Arabia.

Gary you are talking nonsense. It was a silly semantic argument. David was being a self-described @$$, there was no political theory to it. You are looking at inkblots and seeing what you want to see.

If you bothered to check my posting history you’d see posts from me in support cutting of regulations and very critical of govt subsidies. I suspect David and I are in agreement in most threads on most issues on this forum., I just didn’t agree with you mischaracterization of one post where he admits that he was being an sarcastic @$$. I’m very much a small government pro-free market conservative which doesn’t fit your nonsense about my having some kind of “antipathy toward control of such matters by the private sector”. That’s a goblin of your own imagination.

If one wants to read “political theory” into it, then your read is totally backwards. It’s those who see the only possible meaning of “Texas had shut down wells” to be “[the government of the state of] Texas had shut down wells” that could be reasonably accused of “revealing antipathy toward control of such matters by the private sector” rather than those who see that sentence, in context, to mean “[the owners of the wells in the state of] Texas had shut down wells”.

Put another way, never play poker because your seeing of imaginary tells will end with you losing your house to the first card shark you come across.

Correctamundo. There is oil/gas on my relatives property in Kansas. They produce nothing, the company who got the rights to drill can produce and my relatives will get royalty payments. At this time they are not pumping as prices are not conducive to do so.

A stake, as government has in every productive industry in the state. I see a “tell” in this discussion that David’s detracters are in the anti-free enterprise camp. Friends, you are taking on a giant.

And oil/gas production does occur on state land, which makes Texas a landholder which sells production leases. The revenue goes into the Permanent University Fund, which partially funds higher education in the UT system.

Does the State of Texas not own the Gulf continental shelf out to nine nautical miles? While it might not operate any shallow water wells lying out there, it owns, so must lease, the “land” to drillers.

Do the drillers own the wells or just the rigs and pipes, while the land around the hole belongs to Texas? A legal distinction without a difference, I guess.

The State owns the land, unless they’ve sold it. The State generally owns the mineral rights, even if they’ve sold the lands. Mineral rights are often severed from surface ownership. The mineral rights under University Lands are leased to oil companies. They retain a royalty interest in any production that is established on the leases. They do not own the wells, the infrastructure or the production.

In the US all mineral rights are owned by 1) private entities/individuals, 2) State governments, or 3) the Federal government. Mineral owners are generally paid a cash bonus as part of a lease agreement, under which they deliver the mineral rights to an oil company for a period of time that can range from 3 to 10 years (primary term). If production is established on the lease, the oil company retains those mineral rights so long as there is production on the lease. The mineral rights owner is generally paid a royalty interest. This can vary widely; but 1/8 of the production is a common royalty. If the primary term expires without production being established, the oil company relinquishes the mineral rights and the owner is free to offer the acreage up for leasing again.

He didn’t say it was the state of Texas or the government of Texas that has oil wells. He just said Texas, which any reasonable person would interpret as “Texans” in general. Are there no Texans who have oil wells? Can we stop with deliberately misinterpreting other’s comments just so you can create a straw man to tear down to make yourself look smart? Everyone knows you knew what he meant, so it only makes you look like a smart a$$.

I have worked for the Texas petroleum industry ever since the mid 1970s. Geophysical Services, Gearhart Industries, Halliburton, Weatherford EDI, all oil patch service companies that provide down hole, both open hole and cased hole logging (surveying) services. There are many independent service companies to numerous to mention. Yes, there were slow downs in the mid 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Halliburton bought out Gearhart wireline in the late 1980s and Precision Energy services (Canada) bought out Computalog in the early 2000s. Then PES sold out to Weatherford in 2008. Because of Obozo’s ‘economic’ disaster, Weatherford closed it’s Benbrook facility down 1n 2015 and moved its wireline business to Houston. There has ALWAYS been R&D and profitable field ops in spite of Old Blues competition.
From some one that was on the rigs front lines, Retired engineer, Fort Worth, TX

Texas doesn’t have any oil wells? I’ve lived in Texas my whole life. My grandmother had 2 wells in her back pasture. A good friend has wells on his property south of San Antonio. You might want to look at this map of all the currently pumping gas and oil wells in Texas and rephrase your comment.

That’s because there’s a helluva lot more recoverable oil in the ground than M. King Hubbert imagined in 1956… And “Texas” hasn’t “shut down” any wells “due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas” or for any other reason. “Texas” doesn’t have any oil wells.

In 1956, Hubbert calculated that peak oil production in the US would occur between 1965 and 1975, based on a total estimated recoverable resource of 150-200 billion barrels. Cumulative production has already exceeded 200 billion bbl, current proved reserves are 40 billion bbl and the estimated undiscovered resource is currently around 130 billion bbl.

[…]

This is the sentence I took issue with: “Texas just shut down wells due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.”

Which oil wells did Texas shut down?

I suppose, I could have been less snarky with my reply… But, that sentence demanded snarkiness.

For that matter, what oil wells in Texas were “just shut down… due to cost of pumping being more expensive than shipping from overseas.”

If the well is producing, no one would shut it in if it was at least covering its lease operating expenses. And this is not the sort of environment in which operating expenses exceed revenue.

You made a big kerfluffle about the poster use of the word “Texas” when from the context it was meant as a location not the owner of the wells. This is commonly used everyday American English when people are talking about something happened in a particular state without getting into the details of who in that state is doing it. That you keep going on and on about it despite being pointed out to you by multiple posters what was meant just makes you look even more petty that your initial semantic games did. The OP used the word Texas in a different way than you would have used the word Texas, too bad.

[The mods request that you let it go already. This is now officially an off-topic distraction. Thank you for your cooperation. -mod]

You are just plain wrong. Oil wells are shut down and restarted based on the price per barrel. While it might be profitable for a well to produce when oil is at $60, it may not be cost effective for that well to continue at $20, thus it is shut down.

The University of Texas System owns tons of oil reserves in west Texas that are used to finance the University of Texas. The benefit from the PUF, Permanent University Fund, which DOES own and lease Oil Properties is for benefit of University students, so yes, “Texas” does own oil wells.

I believe his point was that the great state of Texas does not own or control oil wells. Those decisions are made by the owners and operators of said wells. I would even go so far as to suggest that he put Texas inside quotation marks to emphasize that point. Everything else he said looks pretty correct to me.

Correct only if you ignore the meaning of the post he was replying to. As chad and I have pointed out the context of the post makes it clear that the OPs meaning for Texas was as a location, not as an owner as David pedantically rants about.

There is a vast difference between the statements
Texas has oil wells (possessive)
and
There are Oil Wells in Texas

Much like…
Texas has shut down oil wells
and
Oil Wells were shut down in Texas.

The State owns no wells so The State can’t shut them down, only the owner can. (unless they are causing environmental damages by leaking then the State can order they cease pumping until repairs are made.)

Of course there is a finite amount of oil but long before we run out we will move on to some better more efficient means of fueling the economy. It was once said that the industrial revolution had to end because we would run out of coal.

Yeah, David. An oil minister in Saudi Arabia famously stated that rhe Stone Age didnt end because they ran out of stones! We will have a reliable substitute before we run out of oil,too. It just wont be what the Gang Green is proffering.

Glad you made the point that TX does not own any wells. Even though many think they understood what the OP meant to say they are still reinforcing an idea of collective ownership. It’s echoed many times as “our” oil or “our” gas especially when it comes to taxing oil are limiting exports.

Fracking is driven by private individuals working for private companies on private land and should never be referred to with the royal “we”.

While I’m all good with bashing Obama at every opportunity, just because a person may say “our” or “Texas” given the right context does not necessarily indicate ownership. My team is the Dallas Cowboys. No I’m not Jerry Jones, nor have I bought the team from him.

This will be unnoticed because so many rants have been traded back and forth and I am a bit late to the party. However, in Texas, mineral rights, by state law, belong to the owner of the land. Thus, on state land, the oil belongs to the state.

In fact,
“One of the primary responsibilities of the Texas General Land Office is to lease the vast mineral holdings of the state for oil and gas development, with the proceeds going to the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to help pay for Texas public education.

Oil and gas leases on PSF lands generate more revenue than any other source of income for the public education endowment, and managing these leases is one of the GLO’s core functions. Leases for oil and gas development occur both onshore and offshore.

Typically, the GLO receives a 20 to 25 percent royalty from oil and gas produced from leases on state land and may take this royalty in cash or in kind, which can be sold competitively to public entities such as gas or electricity (see Energy Marketing). Since inception, the Texas General Land Office has deposited more than $16.8 billion into the Permanent School Fund from oil and gas revenue on PSF lands.”

So, Mr. Middleton – you are incorrect. The STATE OF TEXAS is the legal owner of many many oil wells. As a matter of policy it elects to sub contract the operation of pumping machinery to various operators in return for royalties but, it does own oil wells.

The State of Texas doesn’t own the oil wells. They own the mineral rights under PSF lands. Oil companies lease the mineral rights, drill the wells, own and operate the wells and the production. The oil companies pay royalties on the production to the State of Texas.

“One of the primary responsibilities of the Texas General Land Office is to lease the vast mineral holdings of the state for oil and gas development, with the proceeds going to the Permanent School Fund (PSF) to help pay for Texas public education.

No, it’s you that has misinterpreted what the OP was saying “42 times”. The OP wasn’t claiming Texas owns or operated oil wells, as has been pointed out to you the 42 times you’ve misinterpreted it. And will continue to be pointed out to you should you wish to misinterpret it another 42 times.

lonestarlizard. I didn’t say there was no oil wells in Texas, David on the other hand was claiming no oil well in Texas were shut down because Texas doesn’t own any oil wells. which begged the question that you’ve mistaken for a statement. Perhaps you should let us know what you were smoking when you did that?

The Russians, God love them, were the first to discover oil 4-5 miles beneath the surface. Hard to imagine how that was a biological process, unless we discover that there are anaerobic subterranean species at work. It is possible, perhaps, it’s an abiological organic process creating all of this new-found oil. The world is awash in petroleum, enough to get us through the conversion to Hydrogen or another, as yet, undeveloped source.

Microbes have been found in gabbro, which normally doesn’t even exist until over two miles below the sea floor. Yet, in a section of uplifted gabbro (Atlantis Massif), just 4600 feet down in Atlantic crust, Oregon State researchers found microbes, including apparent methanogens.

In the Gulf of California, petroleum-like substances have been associated with hydrothermal vents in basins with overlying thick organic-rich sediments. However nearby hydrothermal vents with little to no sediment cover (rises) do not exhibit evidence of “hydrothermal oil,” just methane and simple hydrocarbons.

Peak Oil” is another inane and fatuous myth, brother. The latest geophysical research indicates oil is not produced from decaying organic matter. All the dinosaurs didn’t die in Saudi Arabia, duh. Hey, we now know that the earth basically sweats and that sweat that it produces way down deep, deep, deep, to the core is what we call petroleum. The world is awash in petroleum and always will be.

“The latest geophysical research indicates oil is not produced from decaying organic matter…. [W]e now know that the earth basically sweats…”

The Earth “sweats?” Wow, just wow. What’s your doctorate in, Women’s Studies? Please produce one –just ONE– source for oil being sweated out “deep, deep, deep to the core,” and I will publicly kiss your butt right on this forum.

It’s good that you’re on the right side of the issue, “Doctor” Tony, but please don’t try to help. Delusional statements tarnish all of us “deniers” by association.

“Sweat” as used in that comment is figure of speech. It’s an apt metaphor for the natural production of petroleum that has been going on for billions of years, all based on the earth’s original endowment of methane and other hydrocarbons.

I am reading through this site, and following the comment threads. Now that I’ve conquered the myth of CAGW I think I’m going to start exploring the fundamentals behind arguments of biogenic vs. abiogenic hydrocarbons. From what little I have invested in time, I’m asking myself whether it is possible to have a combination of the two.

Because of my limited scope, limited knowledge, and zero field work I certainly will not weigh in or formulate a conclusion on this matter for quite some time. I reckon I have a few thousand hours to spend on this topic.

interesting to think about the state of affairs, provided my comment above. Let’s say, for arguments sake (as I’ve already expressed a lack of knowledge) that abiogenic oil is pseudo-science. Now, with the canary in the coal mine (Alex Jones being censored on the major social media platforms) being exposed as Big Brother and Big Corporation deciding for us what is reality, credible…then how am I ever to grow my reasoning and logical skills. Isn’t the onus on me, the individual (the smallest minority), to strive to discover the truth of any matter to the best of my abilities? Isn’t it incumbent upon me, and only me, to be willing to challenge my current worldview when additional information presents itself that may alter those conclusions?

I’m mentioning this because we are under attack by rogue elements of totalitarians masquerading around as “tolerant” “protectors of free-speech” while operating in exactly the opposite manner. They are elitist in mentality, collective in action and thought, and genuinely despise the individual. This is why they want to shut down debate and censor unpalatable opinions/theories/people. Alex Jones, for all of his eccentricity and volatility, misinformation (and sometimes good information), quirks, offensive words, intolerant interruptions, etc… is a necessary voice in a free society. If we are to eliminate the average mind from accessing unpalatable ideas, then we are reverting to a time where religion dominates the individual by occulting knowledge while de-educating the population (which is happening right now across the globe).

As much as I despise these CAGW charlatans for publishing fear-mongering pseudo-science for selfish motives- I wouldn’t dare ever censor them from publication. Let the debate of ideas be free and open, so that our civilization can advance itself through research and reflection, for we know that the under the threat of violence and coercion, civilization retreats in barbarism.

I very much appreciate the platform provided by Mr. Watts for contributors both in essay and the comments section. Without such media I would likely still be in the Church of CACA – (because I initially read this site with extreme skepticism).

Doesn’t it come down the complexity of the hydrocarbon molecule in question? As in, the complex hydrocarbon molecules we find in crude oil (or whatever) could not have formed from abiotic processses? (I’m asking cause I feel like this was discussed before but don’t remember.)

The organic material from which petroleum forms comes from once living organisms, mainly marine microbes. If the feedstock is of biological origin, what’s wrong with “biotic” to describe the process or final product?

Biogenic methane is formed by the direct decay of organic matter. Most natural gas is not biogenic, even though the original source material was organic. Most natural gas is thermogenic, formed by the same process that forms crude oil.

Thanks David. I remember that column now, and it certainly informed much of my current understanding on this subject. One thing I didn’t remember was the point you made on source material being flora rather than fauna. I guess it was a distinction I’d never considered before, but thinking it through it does make more sense that plant material (marine or terrestrial) would be much more prevalent than dead animal carcasses.

Obviously there is SOME finite limit to the amount of oil there is in the ground, but new sources continue to be found, meaning that limit is currently unknown.

What IS unlimited is human ingenuity. The development of new technologies continues to change what was formerly considered “unrecoverable” oil into a usable resource that can drive further innovation. What is thought to be “too difficult” or “too expensive” to recover today may not be seen that way tomorrow, either because new technology lowers the cost of recovery, or economic changes make the cost acceptable.

The process hasn’t stopped. However, we are producing oil much faster than the Earth makes it. Every oil reservoir ever drilled exhibits a decline curve. If the Earth was making oil at a rate comparable to production, there would be no decline curves.

“When did the processes that formed the petroleum we now have in the ground stop?”

It hasn’t stopped, but it’s a geologically slow process. The oil we collect and refine today took millions of years to form, while we’ve been using it for only 150 years or so. Even if what we’ve used amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the total (one part in ten thousand) we are massively outstripping nature’s “production capacity” by several orders of magnitude.

Fortunately, long before the supply becomes an issue, we’ll have cracked nuclear fusion and energy will no longer be an issue. There’s more than enough oil to fulfill ours needs until then.

The oil we collect and refine today took millions of years to form, so we’re massively outstripping nature’s “production capacity.”

Thanks for your time.

It would seem logical to assume that those “millions of years” to create new petroleum end each and every day continuously presently. E.g., the last million years ends each day forward. Or thought of another way, another million years has a birthday each day there is another day.

Thinking of it in terms of 1 year processing time (just for simplicity’s sake), then if a barrel of oil were created in 365 days the very first time the natural process finished, however many eons ago, then each day past the first year means another barrel of oil per day, e.g., day #366 = 1 new, day #367 = 1 new, and so on.

If you’d suggest as David did above, that “every reservoir exhibits a decline curve;” I get that concept, however, it would still seem for your argument to be valid that you’d have to know exactly how much petroleum the earth is producing everywhere, all the time, each day, along with what I assume we are able to estimate, i.e., the number of barrels being pulled out of the ground.

Otherwise, don’t we Beg the Question by simply assuming that because of known reservoir decline rates, all available petroleum in the ground is being produced faster than the earth is replenishing it?

Unknown reservoirs haven’t been drilled. They won’t exhibit decline curves until they are drilled and put on production.

There are something like 70,000 oil fields in the world. Every single one of them exhibited or will exhibit a decline curve, either due to pressure depletion or water production or both. Even the great Gwahar Field will soon exhibit a decline curve, because its cumulative production is close to half of the total volume of recoverable oil in the reservoir.

Generally speaking, production increases as a field is developed, peaks and then declines, eventually hitting an economic limit…

Field operators will do everything economically possible to prolong production… gas lift, workovers, recompletions, sidetracks… If the field is big enough, they will even opt for secondary and tertiary recoveries with water and CO2 floods. But, ultimately production falls to the point that it ceases to be economic.

There’s even evidence from a 4d seismic survey in Eugene Island 330 field that reservoirs are actively recharging along one particular fault. IT’s just not recharging fast enough to reverse the inevitable.

Right but I’m still thinking of it over the entire planet, not just a single reservoir.

Suppose we were able to gather all the existing petroleum in the earth and pipe it into some reservoir of our making. Suppose further that for each new barrel of oil created naturally per day we were able to pipe that barrel into the same reservoir.

Is it possible to know how a production versus recharge (thanks for the correct lingo, David) graph would look?

I am reasonably confident we will be producing oil for hundreds of years. However, drilling on the bottom of the ocean, in the arctic, fracking, lateral drilling, squeezing oil sands, and so on add lots to up front costs. Oil in the ground, in sand, in shale, and bottom of oceans is not cheap oil.

“Oil in the ground, in sand, in shale, and bottom of oceans is not cheap oil.”

Maybe with today’s technology. And “cheap” is a relative term. If the price goes high enough, oil that was was too expensive to go after can become worth the trouble after all.

Furthermore, technology has a way of changing the cost of getting a commodity. Oil locked in shale formations was considered unrecoverable by any economically-viable means… until fracking was developed just in the past couple of decades. Just because something isn’t usable right now, it does not necessarily follow that it will always be so.

The tip of the spire of the Washington Monument is made of aluminum. Why? Because it was a precious metal. In the late 19th century, smelting aluminum was so expensive and difficult that it was literally worth more than gold. Add some new technological innovations, and today we wrap sticks of gum in it.

Larry, please double-check your facts about aluminum being more expensive than gold in the “late 19th century”.

A more accurate statement would be that aluminum metal was more expensive than gold up until about 1856, which is certainly not the late-19th century. It was far less valuable than gold when the aluminum tip was placed on Washington Monument in 1884. It was still a precious metal though, being worth about the same as silver.

The first commercial process for producing aluminum was perfected in 1856. In 1850, aluminum was worth about $500 per pound ($1102/kg), which is due to the fact that it could only be produced in small quantities in the laboratory. At the time, the dollar was defined as 1/20 of a troy ounce of gold, which means that gold was worth about $643/kg. Aluminum was about 70% more valuable than gold by weight.

By 1859, the price of aluminum had dropped to about $40 per pound ($88/kg), less than 1/7 the value of gold, which is still far more than it is worth today.

In 1884, aluminum was worth about $16 per pound ($35/kg). Silver was worth about $1.10 per troy ounce which is also about $35/kg.

The volume of recoverable oil in the Earth is finite. Whether demand or supply driven, at some point we will have recovered about half of the oil we will ever produce. That midpoint will be roughly correlative with the ultimate peak production rate.

Six years into the supposed “Olduvai Cliff”, there is no sign of the extinction of electrical power grids. Nor are we in any danger of running out of gas, oil and coal. Besides which, there is nuclear power.

IMO we should run our vehicles on natural gas (except diesel for trains and kerosene and gasoline for aircraft), saving petroleum for making things instead of burning it.

There are many other products made from petroleum. Greases, waxes, asphalt, polymers, various chemicals to name a few. As a developing Nation, we wouldn’t be as advanced today as we are without petroleum products. When it’s depleted, we may have life altering living conditions with “green” energy products. A World covered with inefficient expensive solar panels and ugly expensive wind turbines, both with a life expectancy of ~20 years or less. On a heavy clouded windless day, we may have to crank up the old gasoline/diesel 40 KVA 120/240 generator that is out in the detached fire proof building that houses the fire prone lithium batteries that go with our personal solar cell arrays and wind turbine(s). We would need to keep several 55 gallon barrels (or maybe 42 gallon barrels from the old petroleum days) to run the generator, but in a separate fire prof building close to the rain collecting tank that the progressive federal bureaucracy says that you can’t have for your forbidden vegetable garden.

Yes, I remember the gas shortages of the 1970’s. It’s a closed end mind set, a fatalism that mankind just won’t make. That’s peak oil. Always… “The END is Near “. You can not see beyond where the train tracks look like they come together in the distance.
Whatever we need, will be there. There will be new energy sources. All that money poured into solar and wind should be being spent on developing something else. Solar and wind are the most ridiculous things. You could cover the earth with them and it won’t supply a fraction of what we need.
Fundamental difference in philosophy.

David, I met and talked with Hubbert in the mid 70s. I was the only foreigner invited to a USGS sponsored strategic meeting in Denver on the resources and potential energy tech aspects of lithium for the future. I asked Hubbert how he thought the energy picture would unfold as O and G declined. He said he didnt worry about that, that human resourcefulness would take care of it. It always has and it always will as long as we are free to employ its bounty.

Peak oil is a reality. But it won’t be an overnight civilization-killing catastrophe. It will be a gradual dwindling of the oil supply over a very long period, perhaps a century. As the price of oil rises during this dwindling down period, other energy sources will come into their own in a natural and organic way.

You are correct. Using GISSTemp, the NOAA published a map showing the areas with the most and least warming. It showed Ghana has one of the places warming up fastest. The problem is: there are no satellites recording temperature in Ghana, and no ground stations either.

As a pilot since 1990, I can say with 1st hand experience, NOAA’s numbers are being shifted to readings from “heat islands” – as in the center of hundreds of acres of black top, and 400F jet exhaust. – Example, Waco TX “All time high temp” last week. No mention from NOAA the airport did not exist before 1941, and the prior temp of only 2F less was not from a head island – Waco Regional Airport.

Funny, AWS are NEVER moved from a heat island, to a grassy park, or a rural area.

The purpose of the weather stations at airports is to support the safe operation of aircraft not monitor the environment. Regardless of the cause of the temperature, UHI or something else, the pilots using the airport still need to know the actual temperature at the airport for a variety of reasons.

It is when said temperature records are then used as somehow untainted that you have problems. It is interesting that the US spent a large sum on a National Climate Reference Network and yet it never seems to be used for that purpose.

Then we have the MSM constantly quoting a NOAA Automated Weather Station’s “All time high temperature” as proof of climate change, without mentioning the simple fact NOAA moved that source of official temperature to a “Heat Island” like Waco Regional Airport, that did not exist before 1941, and has military and civilian jets emitting 400F exhaust gases near the AWS. – Hard to trust such information.

GISSTemp is simply another rather elaborate model for estimating the earth’s temperature (or at least coming up with a number that they imply is the earth’s temperature.)

Heat islands, vast areas of the earth that are underrepresented by recorded temperatures, changes over time in how temperatures are recorded, changes in how the equipment works and degrades. The list of things that have to be accounted for and adjusted make GISSTemp just another intricate model subject to GIGO.

The NOAA in Asheville NC is nothing more than a proptganda shop for the climate weather guessers!!I remember the Hurricane scare a few years ago after Catrina Hurricane scare!!! Where are all of those hurricanes?????

I happened to hear the BBC radio news at 10am this morning and unnamed “scientists” are apparently predicting a 60 metre, yes, 60 metre, rise in sea levels if the planet warms by one more degree. I’ve ordered new water wings from Amazon, just in case.

I feel so blessed to live at the top of the Mississippi river bluffs in St. Paul, MN. That puts me a couple hundred feet above the river at about 800+ feet altitude so even if the oceans rise 200 feet or so I’m good, ha ha ha. Al Gore’s mansion on the East Coast not so much.

Sea levels were higher during the early Holocene. Presumably that indicates that global average temperatures were higher as well. It appears that the long term sea level trend & temperature trend is downwards – not upwards…….

“During the last 7000 years, southern African sea levels have fluctuated by no more than ±3 m. Sea-level curves based on observational data for southern Africa indicate that Holocene highstands occurred at 6000 and again at 4000 cal years BP, followed by a lowstand from 3000 to 2000 cal years BP. The mid-Holocene highstands culminated in a sea-level maximum of approximately 3 m above mean sea level (MSL) from 7300 to 6500 cal years BP and of 2 m above MSL at around 4000 cal years BP.14-16 Thereafter, RSL dropped to slightly below the present level between 3500 and 2800 cal years BP.13 Sea-level fluctuations
during the late Holocene in southern Africa were relatively small (1–2 m); however, these fluctuations had a major impact on past coastal environments.” South African Journal of Science http://www.sajs.co.za

A layer of mussel & oyster shells on the slope way above the present shoreline is pretty hard evidence to refute!

Yes Thomas Malthus was full of it. Any fool knows it IS possible to have “intimate growth from finite resources”. What was he thinking? Didn’t he see the coming of the “green revolution” or the increased utilization of petroleum? Or better health care, decrease in infant mortality, on, and on. How did he miss all that? What an alarmist fool.

Kelly – how about John Deere’s impact on feeding the Earth? In my lifetime, population control was partially regulated by the ability to grow crops. Now, with diesel farm equipment and infrastructure to move the food, we have about 5 billion more people than an Earth not burning fossil fuels could sustain.

Kelly,
While you use a mocking tone, that is exactly what was wrong with Malthus: he failed to take into account human ingenuity and the drive to not only survive, but to improve. While it was not possible for him to predict specific advances, to ignore this innate quality of humanity was a grave error and a sign of his hubris.

Pareto Principal in effect. In my estimation, what Malthus really despised was the 80% of humanity who only accounts 20% of its total production, while simultaneously consuming approximately the 80% of production produced by the 20% of the population. I think this overlays with German concept of “useless eaters” and with eugenics as an implemented philosophy. There is much resentment for takers constantly feeding off the hard work of the makers. Granted, the super elite who have amassed untold wealth during times with little to no governmental regulation have now stacked the odds through political collusion to eliminate competition, thus making creativity and production capabilities of the non-wealthy percentage of that 20% all the more difficult and taxing (pun intended). I’m sure, now, the pareto principal in human production terms, under our current quasi capitalist/socialist/fascist/communist centralized system of control is even more concentrated at the top because of what I just noted.

The logical conclusion, if anyone is actually paying attention, is the march towards A.I., being force fed into the population of unsuspecting millenials. They don’t understand that having robots do most of the work doesn’t actually allow them all the freedom to explore the arts and hedonism, but is a long term eugenics program to eliminate the 80% as they don’t contribute enough, and therefore have a negative resource/production consumption. They are so obtuse they don’t even recognize that their lack of desire to go get some A$$ is a consequence of this long con scheme.

Much of this ties together, and at the heart of this con is bad science couched in the impervious mantra of “settled”.

add on top of that the push for RFID chip (which loads of unsuspecting dupes are lining up to have implanted) and eventual conversation about permits to procreate (not on the table yet but it is coming I assure you), and we will end in a dystopian, terrible B-rated sci-fi movie of suffering.

Guess what parties are responsible for enforcing all those lovely elitist laws? *hint…. It ain’t civilians…
another *hint – they have always had special badges and costumes 😉

I saw a great comment on these types of predictions a while ago, it went something like “There are two types of AGW alarmists predictions. Those that have failed to happen, and those that are yet to fail to happen”

The same people who brought us their globalist scam of man made “Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/ (fill in the blank)” are the same ones who stood to profit on creating a new vacuum pipe for taxpayer dollars around the world as well as dictatorial desires. Anyone should know that the climate changes all on it’s own and the vanity of determining that man has anything to do with it is just that.

Of course it might be worth mentioning that already with yesterday’s news of Google and Facebook banning certain voices on issues of politics, Media Matters also decided the same day to demand that any voice that denies, disputes, or argues against the idea of man made “Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/ (fill in the blank)” mantra must be banned as well.
It seems to some people silence truly is golden, especially when it’s the opposition that gets silenced.

The diversion/hoax of climate change et. al. is part of the global fascist plan to control everything. For the masses the following must be severely reduced or eliminated:
Personal wealth, corporate wealth, freedom of speech, freedom of association and movement.
Censorship is gaining momentum, the education system is teaching intolerance. Privacy has already been eliminated.Nations must dissolve so open borders is being pushed even by the Pope.
What’s next? Will we soon have to swear an oath of allegiance to work, eat, travel and conduct commerce?

“(Zuckerberg) … is not using the immense power of his platform to halt misinformation about climate change. To the contrary, Facebook is enabling and disseminating climate denial on multiple fronts.”

“Combating fake news is key to combating climate change. As an editorial in the journal Nature Communications argued last year, “Successfully inoculating society against fake news is arguably essential” if major climate initiatives are to succeed. Facebook could be a big part of the solution. But by kowtowing to conservatives, prioritizing profits over accuracy, and maintaining open-door policies toward misinformation, Facebook is entrenching itself as a major part of the problem.”

The argument about global warming has morphed into climate change. This
subtle shift was necessary because the warming as evidenced by satellite
measurements has stopped since 1998, even while CO2 concentrations have
continued to increase. It has become increasingly obvious CO2 is not
driving the warming, the climate, or anything else.

The hysteria about melting ice caps, sea level rise, stronger storms,
droughts, floods, forest fires, etc., has not materialized:
* ice continues to accumulate at record levels in the Antarctic wherein
lies 90% of the world’s ice inventory. Meanwhile, the Arctic Ice Cap
has survived decades of predictions of its demise.
* sea level rise according to Nils-Axil Morner, the world’s leading
authority on sea level change, has not changed at all.
* annual accumulated cyclonic energy is at historical lows, as are the
overall number and strength of hurricanes and tornadoes.
* Droughts and floods continue their march in tune with oceanic
oscillations, such as, La Ninas and the Indian Ocean Dipole.
* Forest fire activity remains at the mercy of lightning strikes,
underbrush stockpiles and interference with nature by humans.

Climate Change has no Evidence

There is not one piece of empirical evidence linking human activities to
the climate – NOT ONE. The only arguments for climate change are
anecdotes, computer projections, Hockey Sticks, and consensus.
* Anecdotes are short, obscure historical or biographical accounts.
Anecdotes cannot be traced to one another or anything else. Anecdotes
are not proof.
* Computer projections are Ludic fallacies based on dubious initial
conditions. The computer projections have failed, because their only
input is greenhouse gases. Computer projections are not proof.
* Hockey Sticks are the cobbling together of two unrelated proxy data
sets. These FrankenGraphs, which would have received an “F” in JHS
science class 50 years ago, are incredibly embraced by many scientists
today. Hockey Sticks are artificial fabrications, not proof.
* Consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

Millennia and centuries ago the consensus believed the Earth was the
center of the Universe and Solar System. Consensus is not proof.
To the contrary, there is abundant evidence proving the climate has
changed often and sometimes violently, all without any human influence.

The Historical Temperature Record

For the last 600,000,000 years temperatures have hovered around 12C
about 14% of the time, around 22C about 50% of the time, and somewhere
in between 36% of the time. Right now we are at 14.5C, about 25% above
the bottom of the historical range. (Ref: Dr. Christopher R. Scotese‘s
PALEOMAP Project at http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). We are no
where near any temperature tipping point.

The 0.4C rise in temperature since the Industrial Revolution (IR) pales
in comparison to the 1.6C increase of the Medieval Warming Period (WP),
the 2.5C increase of the Roman WP, and the 3.2C increase of the Minoan
WP using the IR as a baseline. The average temperature has been
declining for the last 6,000 years. (Alley, R.B. 2000, The Younger
Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland, Quaternary Science
Reviews, 19:213-226.) We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year
old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice,
advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while
you can.

The Recent Temperature Record

The temperature data for the last 100 years has been twisted and
contorted by scientists to comply with the global warming agenda. Under
the guise of ‘homogenizing’ data sets, NOAA has chopped off the cooler
temperatures of the late 1800s, thus making trends afterwards look
warmer. Also, the percentage of fake temperature measurement stations
since 1993 has increased from 5% to 43%, over an 800% increase. A new
fake station was created in Africa which helped conclude that 2016 was
the warmest year ever. This fake science from fake data has created an
ever-increasing temperature record, when the satellite data says since
1998 there has been no warming at all.

The Historical CO2 Record

About 550,000,000 years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm and has wound it‘s way
down to where it is today, near it’s historic low (Berner, R.A. and Z.
Kothavala, 2001. GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over
Phanerozoic Time, American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204,
February 2001.) Below 100 ppm photosynthesis ceases. We are very close
to the tipping point of Earth turning into a lifeless snowball with too
little CO2 for plants to reproduce. On the other hand, plants thrive in
nurseries kept at CO2 concentrations of 1,000 ppm. Thanks to recent CO2
increases, vegetation has increased 11% in arid areas of the world.

For the last 1400 years there have been 6 distinctive cycles of CO2
concentration as registered in plant leaf stomata proxy data. Each
cycle is about 230 years in duration with a 300 ppm minimum and 400 ppm
maximum. As of 2016 400 ppm was reached, the top of the cycle. If
history repeats, expect this deVries cycle to reverse and produce lower
CO2 readings over the next 115 or so years.

To say we are nearing runaway, irreversible global warming due to recent
paltry CO2 increases is ludicrous.

Temperatures and Solar Irradiance

There have been three global cooling and three global warming periods
within the last 250 years. These periods all march to the tune of
changing solar irradiance, not CO2 concentrations. (Douglas V. Hoyt and
Kenneth H. Schatten, A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance
Variations, 1700-1992, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 98, No.
All, Pages 18,895-18,906, November 1, 1993). Isn’t the correlation
obvious? It’s the Sun, not CO2.

Greenhouse Gas Effect (GGE)

Only 3.27% of all CO2 generated comes from man, the other 96.73% comes
from nature. Only 0.001% of water vapor comes from man; the other
99.999% comes from nature. Water vapor by a factor of 26 has more of a
spectral absorption bandwidth or GGE than does CO2. After adding the
contributions of methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs it turns out only
0.28% of the GGE comes from man, the other 99.72% comes from nature. If
man ceased to exist, the reduction in the GGE would be one part out of
357, or barely noticeable.

And one last thing: According to ice core records, the CO2 increases
occur about 800 years AFTER the temperature increases. That is, CO2
doesn’t cause rising temperatures, rising water temperatures cause CO2
to gas out of solution from the world’s oceans into the atmosphere. CO2
is not a driver of climate. CO2 is a passenger.

I though I would find a source that could not be labeled as being promulgated by d-nyers, but discovered an interesting thing. It’s hard to find a site that promotes AGW that will give the actual numbers (wonder why – sarc). So I will offer this:
According to the IPCC, 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit.

If you think AGW is a problem, you should trust that source. If you don’t believe it is a problem, there is no shortage of sites arguing against AGW that will give the same numbers.

Look up ‘mass of the atmosphere ‘ which is 10E15 tons. So humans emitting 10E8 tons per year is 7 orders of magnitude less. Insignificant. PS . 90% of the atm mass lies below 60,000 ft altitude where mixing occurs. Human CO2 production is trivial. Human CO2 emission is following the exponential rise in energy use and population. So 150 years ago when liberals say humans started this warming the human – generated fraction was orders of magnitude less than 10E-8.

“We are at the very end of the present 10,500 year
old Interglacial WP. After this comes about 90,000 years of snow, ice,
advancing glaciers and incredible loss of life. Enjoy the warmth while
you can.”

This is one of those things I’ve been using in some arguments. Eg: Even if AGW has any validity (which I don’t believe it does…) then it can be argued that humankind is effectively helping to stave off the next inevitable ice age as Sol and this planet goes through their cycles.

Important to check back with the same people on what happened – based on an increase of 1/3 of a degree per year projected temperature is a simple plot. What was learned was the oceans absorbed more heat. So the overall thermal change was more accurate, just the placement was in err.

Just the same ocean volume rose, but not directly to sea levels. This was because weight of all that water deformed the ocean floor downward more than expected. So the volume of water increased about the predicted amount.

Possibly yes, just not by much. (I hope) The Scandinavian Ice sheet was some two miles thick and depressed the area by around 800 metres. When you look at the data on post glacial isostatic rebound the only real conclusion you can draw is that the “solid” earth of the crust isn’t really all that solid. A few inches over a few million square miles is a lot of water and weight.

I don’t know how accurate the 1988 date is, I remember hearing about sea-level rise(Long Island and Florida will be under water in 30 years) as early as 1981. I know that ’cause I was driving my gas guzzling ’67 Impala at the time.

The problem was exaggerated by Al Gore and team and everything the man said never happened; that in itself ended the argument over Global Warming/Climate Change for most people. Now it just seems as though the Climate Change alarmists are more political than scientific.

“This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty. It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table. Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.”

For anyone who has been paying attention, that ship has already sailed — and not just because of climate science.

hansen pulled back his claims in the 70’s as his models were not showing what he said it would and gore who had sat as his feet called him old and senile as the claims had gone political and not science! massive amounts of money flowed into believers and almost zero to non believers! when the un took over they saw it as a means to a end to use the rich countries to funnel money to the poor ones mostly africa! when heat did not happen and we started to cool they changed the model then when those claims did not happen the un changed it to climate change which happens every day! at the un and our own congress they are trying to shut down all dissent of this lie!

Anthony Watts :
WITH STATEMENTS LIKE THIS:
“Tim Wirth, then US Senator from Colorado, stated at the beginning of the climate alarm:
We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
THEN , HOW CAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC in the USA maintain any kind of belief in the
CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING aka CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE ?????????
Especially when people like Judith Curry make statements like this :
“This behavior risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty.
It is this objectivity and honesty which gives science a privileged seat at the table.
Without this objectivity and honesty, scientists become regarded as another lobbyist group.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Not ONLY are they SHOWN AS A LOBBYIST GROUP…………………………..THEY ARE EXPOSED
AS A GREEDY , MONEY-GRUBBING , MISLEADING , UN-SCIENTIFIC LOBBYIST GROUP !!!
This makes them VULNERABLE as never before !
Surely , there MUST come a time when HONEST SCIENTISTS ( surely THE VAST MAJORITY ! )
TAKE A STAND to protest this violation of THEIR PROFESSION ?
“CLIMATE SCIENCE” is now ” the bastard child” of Environmentalism and Marxism :
fueled by HATRED OF THE SUCCESSFUL WESTERN CIVILISATION which created and uses
DEMOCRACY and the FREE-ENTERPRISE SYSTEM and which they are intent on destroying !
NOW , with POTUS TRUMP in power , is the time to EXPOSE AND VILIFY these
societal deviants for the reprehensible , execrable , dangerous misfits that they are !
THE much vaunted “PRESS”has FAILED MISERABLY to protect the CITIZENS from
the “CLIMATE SCIENCE BRIGADE and their relentless PROPAGANDA ” and they should
be MADE AWARE OF THEIR FAILINGS AND HELD TO ACCOUNT by correcting and
retracting and APOLOGISING for ALL the misleading articles they have EITHER
BEEN WILLING or BEEN DECEIVED into PRINTING for the last 30 YEARS !!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PERHAPS an appeal to their “INTEGRITY” may serve to elicit such a response ????????????

Fortunately, all of those can be fixed (along with unemployment, racism, crime, poor schools, bad movie sequels, dandruff, etc., etc.) if we’ll simply increase taxes on the rich! Isn’t it funny how it works out that way every time?

Surprised Obamy isnt in there leading the charge on his old home turf, organising the community and all. Given the location of his memorial/mausoleum/library thing he wont get many visitors unless the area is cleaned up a bit

I would love for your message to continue but resoundingly with the wisdom to note that we should be good stewards of our planet. I do believe that global warming is a hoax, but I also believe that we should protect creation with the best of our abilities. Thanks for your hard work.

this is the thirtieth anniversary of my baptism into climate theory in an enviro course. I accepted it, but only as possible, and was prepared to be open minded about it. Thirty years. Even I’m surprised at the number of utterly failed predictions but mostly angry about how little these facts matter to the warmists.

Seriously?? When exactly in history did that happen? 12,000+ years ago we were coming out of a full-on ice age. In between then and now we had the Roman Warm Period, the Middle Ages Warm Period, the Little Ice age (which occurred in several tranches of cold/not so cold), and other deviations. About 8,000 years ago the Earth’s tilt orientation changed and the Sahara became a desert. Cyclical superposition of the AMO, PDO, ENSO and other oceanic cycles have caused huge deviations in climate around the globe. Periods of high volcanic activity have cooled the hemispheres and brought crop failures and death. Etc., etc. Apparently they must have used their history books for door stops instead of reading them.

Also the Egyptian and Minoan Warm Periods, with cold spells in between them, as also between the Minoan and Roman, Roman and Medieval and Medieval and Modern WPs, the latter being the LIA. Cold periods are generally associated with Dark Ages.

Too many MWPs, so we need better names to abbreviate. Minoan is actually a misnomer, anyway, since that warm period mostly came after the flourishing of Minoan civilization, 2600 to 1400 BC. The Modern is sometimes called the Current WP.

Actual pre-industrial temperatures were not fixed and can’t be established with any level of precision. Current temperatures are about 1.1C higher than an arbitarily selected reference frame in the latter half of the 19th century, a temperature that has neither been established as optimal nor typical of pre-industrial times.

The mild warming we have experienced appears to have been a net positive, independent of the benefit from CO2 fertilization.

The main problem with “climate alarm” is that so far there has been absolutely nothing to be alarmed about. Not only has global warming failed to be catastrophic, it’s failed to even be annoying. Long-term, if anthropogenic emissions prevent the interglacial from ending, then an *actual* catastrophe that we know has happened before would be thankfully averted.

The sea water is not rising ,the earth is sinking into the sinus in the core ,know as “The Sinus in the Earth’s Core “‘. The skies are sinking due to man made aluminum siding and soon we will have less headroom ,a clear danger to tall people and trees. Finally sushi restaurants are causing a rice shortage , the fish are doing fine , thanks for asking.

What percentage of the total greenhouse effect is CO2 responsible for? What percentage of all CO2 is humanity responsible for? What percentage of human-caused CO2 is America responsible for?
Does anyone have these numbers?

There are others with a better grasp of numbers than I, and these questions can be researched online, but I’ll give you a first-order approximation:
1. We can calculate the difference between what the temperature is versus what it would be without an atmosphere. Beyond that is theory. We do know that atmospheric pressure should contribute, as well as water vapor and methane, in addition to CO2. Water vapor has a larger impact than C02, and there is far more of it in the atmosphere. Methane, too, is a greater greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there is less of it. If all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, it is theorized that the temperature would drop 2.5 degrees C.
2. Natural CO2 is believe to be greater than 96%; what Man produces, less than 4%. This assumes that the CO2 would have remained constant in nature during the last few decades, an assumption that may not be justified.
3. The US produced 14.34% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions in 2015, according to Wikipedia (a sometimes unreliable source). Since that time, China’s emissions have been increasing about 3% a year, while the US’s has dropped about 1.5%.
4. Yes, people have the numbers, but you need to research them yourself until you are satisfied you have the best answers, not what someone with an agenda may want you to believe.
5.Questions you didn’t ask but should: What percentage of the atmosphere is CO2? What percentage of the atmosphere is Man-produced CO2? What is the ideal temperature for Earth? What is the ideal amount of atmospheric CO2 for life?

Earth has gone through millions of years of climate extreme cycles without man. 200 years of climate study is not even close to developing any conclusion of what human influence is on Earth. In fact so far the predictions have been wrong, which only proves 200 years of climate studies is very short indeed to predict accurately. I could just as accurately say the Earth could evolve around a thousand year climate extreme cycle. Which could be just as accurate and would be just as impossible to adjust or prevent. In the end we are most likely just at the mercy of its cycles and what Mother nature wants to do. Some scientists just want to feel empowered to find solutions to problems that do not exist or cannot be proven. Simply on their basis of ideology that the world needs a crisis to be better inhabitants of the planet.

Ask a climate alarmist to explain the 2,000 year old spruce forest being exposed as Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier recedes or the 4.000year old archaeological sites coming to light in the Alps. You will likely get a torrent of elitist pejoratives…or a blank stare.

John Abraham contended that Trump’s election means we’ve “missed our last off-ramp on the road to catastrophic climate change.” Not to be outdone, academic Noam Chomsky argued that Trump is aiding “the destruction of organized human life.”

Today is about the same as yesterday and will be about the same as tomorrow, but 50 years ago things were different and 50 years from now they will not be the same as this year. It’s not just about temperatures and sea levels.

In my short life of 70 years the world population has doubled, depleting resources and eroding the quality of life. The single, least costly, fastest way to restore the health of the planet is negative population growth.

If every woman was limited to two children, some would have one and some would have none. In the fullness of time, the population of the world would return to a sustainable level and the earth would be a roomier, more pleasant place. If human activity is responsible for global warming, then that would be solved, too.

Rather depends on where in the world one is talking about. Most of the “first world” of western nations, quality of life has greatly improved. The “third world”, however, hasn’t and is just as bad and sometimes even worse than it was before. Some places like Cuba and Venezuela, it could be argued had better “quality of life” for the masses prior to communism/socialism taking over, just to name a couple of examples.

On balance, I’d say the “quality of life” around the world is mostly better (certainly not “eroding”) but that isn’t much comfort to those in the areas where it simply isn’t.

So after you got your nice 70 years, you are prepared to tell others that, no, they are not allowed the same? How elitist of you. BTW, the best way to “stabilize” the global population is to improve the standard of living in the underdeveloped areas. People that are happy with their lives, have good health care, and aren’t subsistence farmers don’t need a dozen children.

Whose quality of life has been eroded? Standard of living is going up in every country not subjected to socialist-caused economic collapse. So are life expectancies, and enough food is now grown to feed every person on the planet. Even the poorest of the world’s poor has better access to food, clean water, and medical care (not to say it’s great, but it has drastically improved). And this is completely sustainable with today’s climate.

The rate of population growth slows, and even declines, as a country’s population escapes poverty. Increase the wealth of nations, and the population problem, if you think there is one, will take care of itself. We do not need others playing God, deciding how many people should live.

Standard of living is going up in every country not subjected to socialist-caused economic collapse

though I suspect that’s not what the OP meant.

that said, I agree that on the whole, even with those socialist-caused economic collapses factored in, standard of living is basically up because where quality of life has improved it has improved greatly.

Thanks for pointing out that the sun rises in the east.
Now, what to do about it… and I am stuck on education.
As long as education is actually political indoctrination, our society can be manipulated like this. If we could pry education away from government (and pro big government) hands, maybe we could teach enough of the the following generations critical thinking skills, and our group susceptibility to swallow as honest, news articles that contain “experts say” or “scientists say”, or “new research shows”.
We know these are media slight of hand phrases for “just believe the following”.
Only the ability to sort the wheat from the chafe will keep us from drinking so much cool aid.

You’re bored because you know it’s 0 for 2 sycomputing. You offered a blanket solution that is no solution at all for a percentage of the populace. When that was pointed out to you, you doubled down rather than admit the flaw in your solution. With such poor reasoning skills on your part, it’s no wonder you are bored.

I sometimes tutor kids in science and math (the lower grades). I pretty much counter what they are taught in school with this simple observation:

“Less than sixty years ago – well within my lifetime – scientists believed that (e.g., menthol cigarettes soothed the lungs, continents were fixed in place, the universe was in steady-state, ulcers were caused by stress, Jupiter had twelve moons – Saturn, nine, etc, whatever came to mind). Much of what I was taught in school turned out to be wrong, or at least incomplete.

That’s the way it has always been. Be ready to accept that much of what you are being taught today will eventually be declared wrong. Always keep an open mind to new concepts and theories.”

This goes WAY back 25 years ago to Dr. Dixie Lee Ray, who pointed out the nonsenses in Al Gore’s false claims in her **Environmental Overkill** (1993). And most of what she wrote THEN applies today, as this article also shows. The false claims, the sensationalisms, and the outright lying. When we can’t quite figure out what’s going on, look for Al Gore’s money, made himself a millionaires by riding that nag.

Continuing to make the same false claims, without substantiations & confirmations & then expecting different outcomes is Crazy, by Einstein’s epigram.

I’m still upset that no one at the EPA has suffered publicly for the Gold King Mine disaster. I’m talking tarred and feathered and run out of town, lucky to get a job sweeping the floors at a waste water treatment facility.

Until such a thing happens, these clowns will continue to preach their false gospel.

The world is always going to end in 5 to 10 years. If the world is supposed to end any sooner, then people will remember the prediction and stop listening to the forecaster. If the world is supposed to end any later, then people don’t much care…too far in the future. My own prediction is that the world will end in 7 years if everyone doesn’t send me $100.

If I came up with a new theory of gravitation, posted predictions based on that theory of the positions of the planets in our solar system six months from now, and after six months had passed none of the planets were close to their predicted position, my theory would be discredited. Somehow, however, proponents of anthropogenic climate nonsense say that in spite of the many spectacular failures of their theory to predict anything, we must still act as though their theory is correct. It’s either purely political, or the proponents are dumber than a bag full of rocks.

We don’t have environmental problems we have government problems. We don’t have health care problems, we have government problems. We don’t have energy supply problems, we have government problems. We don’t have education problems, we have government problems. We don’t have financial problems, we have government problems.

If you want to cause a ‘believer’ a big problem, ask them, in front of a feminist, if they believe the only differences between a man and a woman are the hormones and ‘dangling parts’. He must either admit that a man can’t just decide to be a woman, or incur the wrath of the feminist. Either way, it’s fun to watch.

In the process of throwing away old papers I just ran across this faded fax (ancient transmission method briefly used in the late Anthropocene). There has been lots about the corruption of the education system, but is there a good synthesis of the curricula producing this hysteria?

You are invited in help set standards for a new examination entitled Environment and Humanity: The Race to Save the Planet……..”

I was very busy then and do not remember if I responded, but if so I would have been very critical because the sample questions were horrible and their short reference list included “The Annenberg/CPB video and The Race to Save the Planet and its accompanying test and study guide.” It also included Miller’s Environmental Science and Living in the Environment which were full of good information about such problems but political in advocacy.

I may have been on their list because I was teaching a small Environmental Assessment and Management class to college Juniors and Seniors. It was based on principles, and there was no good text available still in press. I had rejected Miller for the reason above. His preface admits his advocacy and this philosophical statement —– “And most statistics and facts are abstractions of human beings with the tears wiped off or living things we are threatening.” Chapter 27 was an advocacy piece including “Earth’s Ten Commandments.” Many other dire statements include “What are you doing to end your addiction to oil?” I will give him credit for an enormously difficult compilation.

I only know a little of what happened as I left academia. Their plan was for a sample program of the test to be given to undergraduates at the end of a course on the subject. I suspect Miller’s and related books were very successful.

I am not a climate, environment, geology, weather, or physics expert. However, I am an expert on statistics. So, I recognize bad statistical analysis when I see it. There are quite a few problems with the use of statistics within the global warming debate. The use of Gaussian statistics is the first error. In his first movie Gore used a linear regression of CO2 and temperature. If he had done the same regression using the number of zoos in the world, or the worldwide use of atomic energy, or sunspots, he would have the same result. A linear regression by itself proves nothing.

The theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been proven correct in a small greenhouse only. As a matter of fact, plants like higher CO2 and it is frequently pumped into greenhouses because of that. There has never been a definitive experiment regarding CO2, at or near the concentrations in our atmosphere. This theory actually has much less statistical support than the conspiracy theories regarding JFK’s assassination.

Gaussian statistics REQUIRE the events being published to be both independent and random. The temperatures experienced in one part of the world are dependent on temperatures in other locales. The readings are not independent. A better statistical method would be Mandlebroten (fractal). Mandlebroten statistics are not merely “fat tailed” statistics.

A more problematic issue with the data is that it has been adjusted. Data adjustments are frequently needed –for example, if a measuring device fails. However 100% of the data adjustments used are in favor of proving global warming. 100%. Not 100% minus one adjustment. Not nearly 100%. 100% –that is ALL– of the adjustments were in one direction only. Any student that put data like that in a PHD dissertation would never receive a doctoral degree.

One study published showed parts of the Earth where warming was occuring faster than other parts of the globe. The study claimed to be of data solely from satellites. The study identified several areas (Gambia for one) which have greater warming than other areas. Unfortunately, in three of those areas there have been no climate satellite observations for years.

￼

The statements that claim “less arctic ice in recorded history” are equally spurious. We started gathering data on that in 1957 with the first satellite fly overs. On this issue “recorded history” is a very short time period.

Some geologist friends told me that a significant amount of Earth’s heat comes from the hot Earth’s core. They further stated that they do not know what percentage of heat that is. They do know it is probably over 20% and probably less than 70%. Whereas either of those extremes seems unlikely to me, remember that I am not a geologist.

As to rising oceans, that should be measured accurately. Measuring it with a stick stuck in the sand is inappropriate. Geologists tell me that the land is shifting and moving. Measuring it against the gravitational center of the Earth is the only accurate way. However, we do not know how to do that. As a matter of fact, we don’t know precisely where the gravitational center of the Earth is. (Any physicists around that want to explain the two body and the three body problem as it relates to the Earth, Moon, and Sun, please do so.

So, according to climate scientists the world is warming up. They may be correct, they may be incorrect. However, they have been unable to support their thesis via the use of statistics.

I personally see no reason to disassemble the world’s economic systems over an unproven, and somewhat implausible theory.

“100% –that is ALL– of the adjustments were in one direction only. Any student that put data like that in a PHD dissertation would never receive a doctoral degree.”
Not true. That is a requirement for a PhD in climatology.

Global warming, climate change. Just LOOK, LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PLANET MARS. Earth is next…
Venus will wonder sadly at two green planets that roamed the heavens. Now one swirls dead in red, the other inhabited by perpetual waves of blue.
We Venusians tried to help by covertly sending to Earthlings our Venusian experts surreptiously placed in Earths political and scientific expertise.

CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way. DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.” Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific knowledge.

I remember in 1972, the Chairman of the Board of Exxon, (an in-law of mine) told me we would run out of oil in 10 years. That is why Exxon diversified, even getting in to office equipment. I was in law school at the time. He was a respected industry leader. I knew he was wrong but only time could tell.

“settled science” is political, not science – They only cite the supply side, not the demand side of CO2 (Plant food), They only talk about the affects on temperature from CO2 raise, never the affects on agriculture (Every greenhouse operator knows increased CO2 = increased crop yield.)

There are two very simple facts the Liberals will not acknowledge:

#1 This Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel – John Deere does not run on batteries… so, what to do with 5 billion dead bodies?

#2 The “deal” Trump wisely backed us out of would have taxed USA and sent this money to the #1 and #4 producers of CO2 – Chairman Mao’s China, and India…

It’s amusing that Joe Romm of ThinkProgress would state that Trump’s environmental policies would create “dozens of failed states south of the US border”. The only country that can really be described as a recently failed state is Venezuela, the country with the most oil. Its failure is due to it being a socialist dictatorship that was supported by the Obama administration, not Trump’s climate policy.

It’s all moot anyway, true or false. Once solar plus batteries are the cheapest form of commercial energy (around 2028) and battery vehicles are both cheaper and out-perform their counterparts (around 2025), no one will buy the old stuff anymore. Given about 40 years (roughly 2070) to replace existing plants and vehicles, emissions from fossil fuels will approach zero and Global Greening will be working for us overtime to suck up the extra.

Are your predictions with or without subsidies?
And when solar plus batteries aren’t the cheapest form of commercial energy by 2028 and battery vehicles aren’t cheaper and still don’t out-perform their counterparts by 2025, will you just change the dates of your predictions like most alarmist do?

What are you trying to pull here with your heavy handed “suggestion” that scientists are fortune tellers who were wrong ? It was because of their warnings that policy changes were instituted by governments to make sure the worst case scenarios did not occur.

Get a grip. What is being “pulled” here is the fact that not a single claim of calamity associated with AGW came true. Not one. Flipping a coin would give you better results which means they are categorically wrong. As in never right. What kind of “science” do you call that? Is it something YOU want to believe in?

Vicki, name the policy changes and show how they actually prevented the calamity. Just pointing to a random policy change and a random prediction of calamity does not mean one has anything to do with the other.

I could claim that unless you drink some snakeoil you will develop a particular rare disease. If you drink the snakeoil and don’t get the disease does that mean the snakeoil was effective? or were you just hoodwinked as you would not have gotten the disease regardless?

And lets not forget that most of the CAGW predictions were not accompanied by any policy changes, indeed policy changes such as Kyoto were rejected by the United States and the calamities still did not happen. Just because you bought the snakeoil doesn’t make it’s claimed effects real.

Largest wildfire ever in California
Firestorms all over the world
Hottest day ever measured in Europe
The highest C02 level in 200,000 years.
World Temp rise so far is 1 degree Celcius, about 2 degrees Fahrenheit
Ocean buffering effect caused by C02 absorption from the atmosphere is slowing down

The highest C02 level in 200,000 years.
Good. But most of that is natural.

World Temp rise so far is 1 degree Celcius.
Nonesense. Most rural temperature measures show zero increase, or slight decline. The rest is due to poor measurement, urban heat island, etc.
The natural rise in global temperature since the little ice age is about 1/2 degree.

Ocean buffering effect caused by C02 absorption from the atmosphere is slowing down
Unquantifiable speculation. Global greening is using most of the natural CO2 increase.

Seriously ? you lead with a fire in Ca (yes its big new because its in Ca) and then firestorms!! all over the world!! yes its summer and bushfire season. Its winter and wet were I am , not a firestorm is sight. Then goes on tell people not to quote news articles. Good grief.

History, ie documentation, only began in California in the 18th century, during the Little Ice Age. Since the 19th century, we’ve been in a warming cycle. Who knows how big CA forest fires were during the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warm Periods and the Holocene Optimum.

Besides which, our idiotic forest practices have allowed far more fuel to build up than would be the case in a state of nature.

I love the cherry picking. And to think Joe wants us to limit our reading to just his “scientists”.
1) There have always been firestorms. Many in the not to distant past have been much larger. Read up on issues regarding forest mis-management.
2) Same thing.
3) Quality records only go back a few decades.
4) Why is 200K years such a big deal? Go back a few million more years and CO2 levels were 2 to 3 times greater than today, and nothing died from it.
5) Actually it’s 0.6C, but what the heck, who needs accuracy when there’s a world to save.
Regardless, most of that warming occurred long before CO2 started rising, so CO2 couldn’t have been the cause of it.
6) Where did you get this nonsense claim that the oceans buffering is running out?

7) Odds are that now that Joe has read the riot act to us heathens he’s returned to his coven where he will brag to his fellow SJWs and won’t bother returning to see if anyone actually responded to him. Can’t risk learning anything you know.

All the same organizations & many of the same people were terrifying us with prognostication about the coming ice age. Then as now anyone who doubted this was stupid & ignorant at best & sinister pawns of big business at worst. Remember the “population bomb” now the same people are saying we must immediately flood the country with tens of millions of illiterate third world peons because we’re not having enough kids. Why this constant need to predict universal doom. One reason is it feeds their exaggerated sense of self importance & delusions of grandeur. It also feeds the demand for endless state power to deal with these endless crisis.

Government (including judicial branch) run by leftists is organized crime deprivation of rights using one fabricated excuse after another for their criminal enterprise of control, steal, skim, redistribute to leftist supporters.

Am pretty sure Global Warming scare started prior to 1988. Prior to being a Dem Senator from NY, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was in the Nixon administration. In September 1969, he wrote a memo to Nixon that if something wasn’t done, NYC, Seattle and Washington DC would all be under water by the year 2000. I read the letter he wrote from the on-line Nixon Library. It should probably still be available.

It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’ s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.

Glowbull worming is dead, all the low IQ mouth breathers for that religion have moved on to the Disciples for hating Trump. With the memory span of a goldfish, their handlers steered them to the new outrage dujour.

An interesting article summing up the apathy toward the whole subject by the American public. When recently asked by Gallop to name any issue that concerned them, Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it, did not make the top 30 – in fact it was never mentioned at all. The hype has indeed turned people off as they know the oceans are not rising and the sky is not falling. We always have fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Such things are newsy, but never prove anything concerning major climate shifts. Again, nice article.

In Eisenhower’s famous Military-Industrial Complex speech, he also issued the following warning:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.”

How can you be so willfully blind when you read about what is happening around the world RIGHT NOW. Maybe when the flood or fire enters YOUR home? That is the thing about Republicans, they never care about a problem until it happens to THEM.

What stupidity and foolishness – and you are taking us all down with you.

A flood did enter one of my houses (not my home, fortunately). About forty years ago. I would guess you are about twenty, maybe younger. Study some history. Ignorance seems to be the primary attribute of Democrats. If anything has changed, it’s that there is less flooding, fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, and fewer acres burned by forest fires globally compared to the past.

I’ve had floods enter my home on several occasions. Back in the 1970s. That same house hasn’t been flooded in the decades since. By your logic, that means things are getting better, not worse, re flooding because of CO2. (the fact that better drainage was added to the neighborhood in the years after the flooding is one of those little details that get overlooked when one has a boogeyman, CO2, to blame/credit everything thing on).

I also have relatives who’ve had fires enter their home. Back in the 1980s. Again, it been decades, so this CO2 thing must be making the fire situation better as well (again following your logic).

There are many things going on in the world right now (just like there always has been), some good some bad. In some cases we know what the cause is, but in most we really don’t. It is quite foolish of YOU to think that you know what these causes are. So please keep your righteous indignation to yourself.

When every outcome proves that your hypothesis is correct then you are no longer dealing with science. It’s then more appropriately called religion. Just look around our planet today–right now, at this very moment–record snowfalls (Canada) and record heat (USA and Europe). Simultaneous events, so take your pick.

Solar activity, massive volcanic activity, earth quakes, Milankovitch Cycles (planet tilt/wobble, orbital cycles)…and today we are also hundreds/thousands of years late (overdue) with our planet’s normal polar flip (North becomes South and vice versa), a relatively frequent event for our sun (5 times in my lifetime). Are these signals that we are about to “go normal” and flip? What happens then?

So what’s your plan and how do you propose we “fix” all that which has been going on for the past 4.6 billion years? What’s the cure? Burn less oil and coal? Corks for cows?

Stimulating discussions are a good thing. I wish that I had a pumping well in my back yard.
The neighbors would complain but, I would say, “drill your own damn well.”

We humans always need a boogy man to fear. In our yearning, we lose sight over the big picture.
We are a planet orbiting a star that controls the ebb and flow of our climate, sea level, glaciers, and quantity of sea ice. We are arrogant to think that we have any effect at all on what the “climate” is doing . Of course there is money to be made by scaring people into giving others control over what we drive, consume, eat, and breathe. Don’t believe these hoaxers!

I say, “don’t worry, enjoy the ride as we orbit our star at 18.5 miles per second!

I will make only one prediction and that is that CO2 will continue to rise at about 1 PPM per year for the next 2 decades. Given that China and India have said they are not going to stop using it there is little doubt that will happen IMHO.

We are at a great juncture where the predictions of the CO2 scientists are going up by 0.25 – 1.5 C and the cyclical scientists are predicting the opposite. They both can’t be correct but they both could be wrong.

Keep your scorecards updated and hold their feet to the fire folks. It’s going to be a fun 2 decades.

CO2 has risen steadily for the past 20 years, with practically no global warming, other than associated with El Nino events. Before that, it rose steadily for ~20 years with slight global warming. Before that, it rose for ~30 years with pronounced global cooling.

Since no correlation, no causation. The AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly shown false. Indeed, it was born falsified, since the scare in the 1970s was global cooling, despite three decades of CO2 increases.

A curious fact is that at the South Pole, where the effect of CO2 should be most pronounced, there being so little H2O in the air, there has been no warming for the whole temperature record there.

CO2 might theoretically have some effect higher in the atmosphere, where there is less H2O. But its GHE has clearly been, at best, exaggerated by consensus “climate science”, ie GIGO computer gamers and the data-adjusting book cookers who love them.

The key puzzle for me is the origin of kerogen. Once we have kerogen, I think the theory of how it is cooked into shorter-chain hydrocarbons at shallow depths is sound. But we can’t explain the origin of oil without getting to the origin of kerogen.

The biogenic theory of oil essentially begins with sugar molecules. How do we start with sugar molecules with equal ratios of carbon and oxygen, strip them of their oxygen content, and get them to oligomerize or polymerize into 1,000-Dalton chains — particularly when the thermodynamics says that at depths shallower than 100km, the chemistry should proceed in the opposite direction toward oxidation and decomposition?
–Todd “Ike” Kieferhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/01/a-tale-of-two-sigmoids/#comment-1995645
==========

So you took these errant prognostications from thirty years ago as proof that climate science is a fraud? What a stupid and worthless premise. Those date from an era when climate science was in its infancy. Of course they’re wrong. However, the science and modeling of climate is much better now and the newer predictions are matching observations more closely. Guess what, they’re still very worrying. Remember, past performance has little to do with future results. This article is journalism at its worst.

First, many of these predictions were made less than a decade ago. Secondly, please tell us a prediction which has not failed. Finally, please tell us what would disprove your belief that Man is causing a significant climate change.

“Finally, please tell us what would disprove your belief that Man is causing a significant climate change.”

I predict you will not get an answer from Miss M to that question. For those like Miss M blind belief is all they have, they cannot image anything that would show their belief to be mistaken. Which mean what they believe in is not science because in science theories can be falsified, which is what your question is really asking: i.e. “what would it take to falsify the theory?”

Miss M, science is predictive. If a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction fails, it means the theory is a failure. If we can’t judge a theory on it’s ability to make predictions then it is *not* science.

When every testable prediction made in the past has failed, why should anyone believe they’ve got it right this time? Particularly when those who made the failed predictions, the same ones making the new predictions, refuse to acknowledge their past failures?

Peak oil is a complete joke. We will never run out of oil, never. Oil is simply a hydrocarbon. There is absolutely no shortage of hydrogen or carbon, and as long as you those building blocks you will never run out of fuel. The Fischer Tropsche Process can turn just about any carbon source into fuel, and it is commercially viable and has been in use since WWII.

The reason the alarmists are always wrong is because there model is wrong. No amount of propaganda will turn a lie into the truth.

To deny that climate change is happening is to deny the facts that:
– fact. the last 3 years were the warmest ever record dating back to when accurate global temperature records began (19 century).
– fact – there is no warming hiatus that deniers clam. 1997-1998 was an El Nino warm period but has been far surpassed by heating in recent years.,
– fact the last decade was the warmest ever recorded.
– fact. arctic sea ice has diminished by at least 30 % since satellite records began starting in 1979.
– fact warming in the high arctic is accelerating and is as much as 3C warmer than the long term average
– global ocean temps have increased by as much a .3 c since measurements began in 1969. Early climate change models didn’t predict that much of the excess heat produced due to global warming would be taken up by the oceans.
-fact . Greenland and antarctic ice sheets are melting at accelerating rates. Ice cover is at historical lows.
and on and on.
-fact., Extreme weather and fire.
There should be records kept to identify the deniers so that future inhabitants of the earth can hold their legacy and estates accountable. let their children know that they helped cause the existential threat that humans face. History will forever record the names of those who out of pure self serving greed denied, in the face of overwhelming facts and evidence, against the unequivocal science as stated by virtually every qualified, climate scientist Denied for their egotistical ends, willfully ignorant, out of evil intent.

A geophysicist told me oil is analogous to human blood. The earth didn’t stop it’s processes just because we started driving cars. So no finite pool of oil to deplete.

On my last business trip, i was tuned into the flight thing that tracks location, altitude speed, time, etc. It also had the temperature. At 11000 meters it’s -50 degrees Fahrenheit. In a universal context im thankful for our thin little blanket

Oil is produced on geological time scales, but we are taking it out much faster than that. You seem to like (flawed) analogies, so here’s one: If I cut one of your arteries, your body will continue to make more blood, so does that make you immune to bleeding out? Of course not. So it doesn’t matter that oil is still being created, there will come a time when all the oil that is left is not economical to extract. THAT is the point that it is “depleted”. And long before that point it will get progressively more expensive, forcing us to utilize other energy resources, probably coal and nuclear, so that when oil is effectively depleted, we won’t need it as an energy source anymore.

Just due to the pro climate change crowd wants to throw us in jail, talk over us, silence us in itself proves that climate change, and all the lexiston before it, and everything that will come after it is all a huge farce to get your vote, all liberals can’t win on ” Policy “, the have to create a ” Boogie man “, as well to enrich the powers to be because just like a religion, give me your your money and I’ll make sure we combat the effects of climate change, and throw the anti-climate change deniers to jail

Good article, and didn’t even bring up the fact that “scientist” were caught fabricating evidence several times.
Let the facts determine scientific outcomes. The educated know when we are being lied to

As fun as all of these example are, they ultimately miss the target by a wide margin. If there is a tipping point, it is inevitable that we will be ridiculing the prediction of it at the very moment that we pass it (and probably even beyond that). That’s the nature of this type of process. Think of the Rice and Chessboard scenario: the poor wise man’s claim seems preposterous until you start working through the implications or the logistics of the rice delivery.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy